well and the ran for president multiple times on the democratic ticket, and it was always great to see him in the debates and he always, i think, represented really well, and was able to articulate things on a much larger stage than people like him are normally given access to. but at the end of his run in congress, i asked him, why are you a democrat? why do you say -- why don't our run as a green party candidate or why don't you advocate for a multiparty system in the country? and his answer was a terrible one. he said i've cast my lot with the democrats. bernie sanders, is bad on guns, too, and i understand why. he is from vermont. if he came out strong against guns he would probably not be able to win his own seat. i wonder our how big of a begun gun love grandpa is, this palestine politics are just shy or atrocious, and -- but he is
going to make the debate very interesting. but is that being a usefulledot for the kind of duopoly we have? it probably is. until we break our single party system in this country, nothing will ever change. we have legalized corruption and legalized bribery called campaign finance, where huge corporations are able to purchase candidates in both parties and they know which way the wind is blowing so sanders gives some legitimacy to this process by engaging in it. if we took our brightest minds, either from congress, where there's not many bright minds, or broader society, and actually said, let's try to run candidates that are not democrats or republicans and not bee holding to corporate interests and actually have really serious political killeds? jill stein, a candidate for the green party, extremely sharp person, very smart, good ideas,
no public profile whatsoever. if you have higher profile people that are willing to cast their lot by -- to try to shatter the duopoly, you can imagine slight chinks in the armor of the empire. until that happens -- but i'd rather haveberfully sanders in it than not. except it gives legitimacy to the anointing of a bush or clinton or some other -- >> drop in commodity prices. >> we're on cnbc right now. >> i have five seconds. >> less than that. >> well, look, i think the drop in commodities is a positive thing. clearly there's been a massive reduction in the ability for a number of corporations such as shell to make a lot of money. but the move that obama allowed to drill in the arctic, shell pulled out which didn't last very long. there's going to be desperate
desire by the corporations to find more and more resources, which is difficult with the current economic situation. a drop in commodity prices to me actually -- that to me is a positive. if, if it leads potentially to some kind of greater reliance on less dirty energy, and briefly on 9/11, i've always said and it's a question often comes up -- i don't doubt for a second it was the official story is, i believe, i think it was done by bin laden, think it was done by 19 hijackers. the question that remains unknown about that event to me has always been the actual real role of saudi arabia i'm not suggesting someone was pushing a button in riyadh. but 15 of the terrorists were saudi, and more importantly, if america is actually serious about fighting terrorism, which it's not, it would deal with saudi arabia. not invading. just saying, saudi arabia is one of the key global sources of
terrorism, and america prefers to -- rather than criticize. i got my one clap when i said -- >> let's like when you say fuck you get a clap. >> to close all of this, the way that bush and cheney and rumsfeld and others were able to exploit the horrors of 9/11 has not been fully investigated. and we -- the kinds of crimes that were justified on the basis of 9/11 were epic in scale. >> which continues. >> and they continue to this day. president obama's justification for drone bombing in yemen, it's still linked to 9/11. the 60 words in the authorization for the use of
military force is still the justification for bombing people who were toddlers when 9/11 happened under the understanding they were involved with 9/11. we do live -- it's a cliche but we live in a semi orwellian existence in terms of how all of these things are justified. i want to thank anthony lowenstein vetch mother for writing the book forks smart questions from the audience, and most of all for publishing this amazing book, and the housing works for hosting it. buy the book, housing works gets all the proceeds. thank you all very much. [applause]
[inaudible conversations] >> there is noon fiction author or book you'd like to see featured on book tv? send us an e-mail, book tv@c-span2 doering. tweet us, or post a comment on our way, facebook.com/booktv. >> so, every year, tens of thousands of americans are charged with crimes, after an eye witness comes forward and i.d.s them. but what is the science saying? well, a third of the time, when an eye witness picks someone out of an actual lineup, they pick out an innocent filler. one third of the time.
out of the first 250 dna exonerationness the united states, 190 of them involved mistaken eye witness identification. so what is behind these problems? well, first of all, our memories don't work like cameras. as we assume they do. simply seeing something does not commit it to memory. and there are many things thatting negatively impact how well we encode and recall a memory. white guy trying to remember a black suspect. versus trying to remember a white suspect. in studies, i'm 50% less likely to be able to do a correct identification. seeing someone at mid-day verse dusk has a big affect on how well you will be able to remember and make an identification. whether you're physically exerting yourself at the moment
of the memory. that's often the case when you're suffering a crime. now, think the bigger problem with eye witness identification has to deal with factors in control of the police. memories easily lost and easily corrupted, and research suggests that -- the subtle suggestion by the persons a mr.ing the lineup, little things, like when the witness starts to pick out one of those innocents, saying to the person, ma'am, we have plenty of time. take your time. that just seems like a prudent thing to tell a person. after all, a mistaken identification can derail a whole case being worked by detectives. isn't that a good thing for an officer to say? the research suggests, no. that can lead to misidentification. same thing with just saying, after the person has picked someone out, good job, ma'am, you got the suspect we brought
in. how does that change things? well, subsequently, those individuals who have been given that feedback feel much more confident. they remember better after the fact, just by that little subtle push. one of the biggest problems with eye witness identification is that we cannot do just one. in this particular case, they brought the victim in initially to look at photographs. she looked actually at john jerome white. then they brought her back to do the in-person lineup. she picked him out again. then they brought her into court, where she said, yes, i see the man who attacked me in the court today. so from the jury's perspective, well, one two, three, you're out. clearly she remembers very well. but what about those second two
identifications? was she remembering the person who attacked her? or was she remembering the photograph she saw a week earlier? when she was brought into court, was she remembering the man who attacked her, or was she remembering the person that she has now seen twice before? we know from research that simply seeing someone's picture on facebook can make it more likely that we will pick them out of an eye witness identification lineup. what this means to me is that we need to handle eye witness memory a lot more likely handle other trace evidence. think about how careful we are with a blood sample. how careful we are to preserve it. how we carefully track the chain of custody. with memory, what do we do? we let people go out in the
world, talk to other people, go back to the crime scene go over the events many times anywhere the own heads. what does that do? it corrupts the memory. we need to think about ways that we can treat all evidence with scientific care. >> you can watch this and other programmed online at booktv organize.org. >> last year, run presidential candidate rick santorum skid his book "blue collar conservative." >> the thesis of the book is there's whole group of people in america, in fact a big swath of america, that is being ignored, left behind, not included in the discussion, i think, for either party. particularly i would argue the republican party. that's -- i call them blue collar conservatives, the folks out there that are working people, most of whom don't have college degrees, folks that
really still understand the value of work and the importance of work and responsibility and people who understand the importance of family and faith, believe in freedom and limited government. so, you would say, wow, those are conservative republican voters, and in many cases they're not. in fact a lot of them aren't voting at all because they don't really see either party talking to them about the concerns they have in trying to create an opportunity for them to live northwestern dream, and you look at the democratic party, they talk about the voters a lot, and in fact talk about how they can give them certain things, whether it's free health care or subsidized health care or increasing their wages with government minimum wage increases 0, -- a whole laundry list of things that -- government benefits they're trying to help, but most of these folks don't want government benefit, don't want to be on a government program. they want to work, want to have
jobs that are well-paying jobs, that create an opportunity for them to support. thes and their families, and that sounds lying more of a republican voter, but unfortunately republicans our maybe economic message, we talk like economists. wrapped up in the rightness off pour position. talk about balancing the budget, talk about cutting taxes for high income individuals to create jobs. and then cutting government, in particularly a lot of benefits, and if you're the average american listening to this economic plan you say where. acin that plan? what are you doing for me, the people who are seeing their wages stagnating, not getting increases, not seeing inflation eat it away and that's who this book is written for. and for run are republicans to understand i would they're not succeeding in getting these votes. >> we want to hear from you. tweet us your feedback about the programs you see here.
twitter.com/booktv. >> have the privilege of welcoming poet and historian rita gabis today to discuss her book "a guest at the shooter's banquet: my grandfather's ss patch, my jewish family, a search for the trouble truth" she's share story as the -- her mission to unravel the truth about their grandfather from 1941 to 1943 she discovered was a chief of security police under the gestapo in a light wayneon town when jews were murdered in 1941. she is a author of two books of post triand co-author of a book on the craft of writing.